Theistic evolution

False dichotomy error. There are other possibilities:

Trust God
Trust Man
Trust Man's interpretation of God
Trust a denomination's interpretation of God
etc
etc
etc </font>[/QUOTE]There is no error when one accepts what the Bible says, as it does in the Creation account in Genesis chapter one. There is no justification from the passage, to understand the "days" of Creation other than in the literal sense. It is onll those who cannot accept that God is able to do as He says, to throw up smoke screens, and adpot the nonsense that the world has been spouting for years about anything but Creation. I have to see anyone disprove the Biblical account of a literal Creation, in a very literal sense as recorded in Genesis chapter one.

 

Daniel 8:26

 

Daniel 8:26 </font>[/QUOTE]Your example is no good, as the Hebrew here reads: "evenings and mornings", in the plural.

 

On what basis do you suppose that there is any symbolism in the Creation account in Genesis chapter one and two? How did you arrive at this conclusion? Why not extend this to also include the next chapter in Genesis, where the fall of man is recorded? How can you account for the order of events as recorded in Genesis chapter one, and that as taught by Theistic Evolution? You would, with your theory (it is only a theory, as it will never be factual), have to accept a huge "gap" between Genesis 1:1, and 1:2, again for which you have no Biblical warrant, but only your own humanistic reasoning. You will also have to believe that death existed in the world long before it was pronounced as a result from sin, as recorded in Scripture, which came after the fall.

Theistic Evolution is unbiblical, and a clear contradiction to what is very clearly taught in the Holy Word of God. It is an evil compromise that has been pushed in Christian thought and theology, and has its origin in the pit of hell. It does nothing to glorify the truly wonderful work of God as recorded in Scripture, but is a challenge to the authority of the Word of God, where some who profess faith in Christ, have been sadly deluded into believing a great lie from the devil himself. Theistic Evolution, would be classed in what Paul referred to as, "doctrines of demons".

 

Daniel 8:26 </font>[/QUOTE]Your example is no good, as the Hebrew here reads: "evenings and mornings", in the plural. </font>[/QUOTE]Check again! The Hebrew words in Daniel 8 for 'evening and morning' are singular.
It is often translated in the plural to minimize confusion amoung the more literal-minded folk.

Rob

 

I'll repeat what I posted last time this was asked.

Genesis 1:1-2:3 uses a very different style of writing than what follows; indeed, it is without match in the entire Bible. Probably the closest literary parallel to this section is Revelation 6 and 8:1-5 which describe the seven seals. One account uses a framework of days, the other uses a framework of seals. Both accounts use a repeated phrase to introduce/conclude the seven items (the phrase varies slightly on the first and seventh days, and all but the second through fourth seals). Both accounts set off the seventh item as special. Both accounts portray God's actions from his dwelling place (through speech or through the breaking of seals on a document) as dramatically affecting our world. Both describe events that had not been witnessed by humans at the time of writing (John witnessed the vision, but not the actual events). In both accounts, the degree of literal description is highly debated.

There are other reasons not to presume that this passage is a historical account. It describes the same one-time event on both days 1 and 4: the separation of light (called day) from darkness (called night). It uses anthropomorphism to describe the sun and moon as ruling day and night. It completely ignores describing anything that would contradict the science of its time: no hint is given to the size of the sun, moon or stars, or to the fact that the earth is roughly spherical, and the idea of a firmament fits perfectly with what was then known. While these things can be reconciled with what we now know, the account does not in any way reveal what humans would later discover in these areas.

Another major reason is that the days are arranged in a way that creates symmetry between the actions on the first three days (forming light, sky and seas, dry land covered with vegetation) and the second three days (filling light with luminaries, sky and seas with birds and fish, dry land with animals and humans). This symmetry is only present because of the specific elements the author chose to focus on. If the creation of angels, bacteria, seaweed and hell were also included, the current symmetric arrangement would break. Because of this, it is unlikely that the symmetry is due to the way God actually created, but was rather made by the inspired author in how he chose to describe certain aspects of God's creation.

Probably the most common reason given is that if this account and the one following in Genesis 2 are both historical, they do not fit together very well. In a plain reading, the order of creation in Genesis 2 is man, plants, land animals, birds, woman. The order in Genesis 1 is plants, fish, birds, land animals and humans. The first account starts with primordial waters overwhelming an earth that is "formless and void" (Gen. 1:1-2) while the second starts with primordial ground in need of rain (Gen. 2:4-5). In the first God tells the humans to rule over the other creatures and subdue the earth; in the second man is placed in the garden to "work it and take care of it". The first portrays God creating mainly by speaking; the second has God forming Adam from dust and breathing life into him, with the animals and birds similarly formed out of the ground. The first portrays God (Elohim, the Hebrew generic name for God) as above his creation while in the second God (Yahweh, the Hebrew personal name for God) walks in the garden with Adam and Eve. There are many creative ways to attempt reconciliation between the accounts, but all have problems and all require more exegetical gymnastics than one would expect to be required to fit together two historical accounts presented back-to-back in Scripture. A far more straight-forward reconciliation is possible if one accepts that they are not both intended to be historical accounts.

Finally, the days in this account serve a purpose other than history. They also set the template for the work week and Sabbath. While this alone does not show that the days are not also historical, it does explain why a framework of days would be used even if the days were not historical.

All these reasons are based on the text itself. Even if creation itself in no way contradicted the order of creation shown in Genesis 1, there would still be many reasons to not take the account as historical. Indeed, that is why the days were suggested to be figurative at least as far back as Augustine -- long before any scientific reason for such an idea existed.

The order is a literary arrangement, as described above.

What kind of death came into the world from sin? Cellular death? Plant death? Animal death? Human death? Spiritual death? All of the above? It's only by blurring the distinction between man and beast and reading animal death into passages that talk about human death that one can make this into a problem.

 

Mercury, all you are doing here, is to argue from your human understanding, which no doubt has been tainted by modern thought. You simply cannot try to harmonize what the Bible teaches with any of the sciences. If there is a contradiction between the two, there is no doubt that the Bible alone stands to contain the Truth, while any conflicting views must be rejected. You have no authority, other than mans, to argue against what the Bible teaches in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. My authority is taking the facts as taught in Scripture, for what they are, and not trying to suppose that I know any better than God Himself.

Do you accept the Biblical teaching or Creation out of nothing?

 

Not to worry, Marcia. This question will always raise ire amongst some.

It is weird that A.H. Strong was the standard text in Baptist schools on theology, yet A.H. Strong taught Theistic evolution and had no problem balancing it with scripture and science.

Dispensationalists of C.I. Scofield's day had no problem inserting the gap theory (Gen 1:1-1:2) to reconcile the ages with scripture, hence a non-twenty-four hour day. It is only in recent years that objections were raised against the gap theory.

It is important to keep in mind that original Theistic evolutionists were in fact creationists and believed strongly in the inspiration of scripture and were fundamental believers. They do not believe man came from animals....their evolution remained within the species and did not cross-specie; man was always man and created by the finger of God. Adam, by the way, was a generic term until later in Genesis when it became a specific name for a man.

Cheers,

Jim

I stay out of the debate for good reason.

 

Theistic Evolution in any form reduces the Bible to errors.

Jesus refered to Adam and Eve being created.
Paul refers to Adam sinning and Christ being the second Adam.
Evolution by definition is natural, random, not supernatural.
Evolution by definition denies design even though they admit that it is "apparently" there.

Theistic evolution is an oxymoron, as has been pointed out.

As to Genesis being literal, I would highly encourage everyone to read Gorman Gray's book, The Age of the Universe.

I'm not going to explain it because I already have on other threads, and I get discouraged by how folks are entrenched in their beliefs and not open to looking at the Hebrew text and the context of Genesis in relation to the rest of Scripture.

But you must read this book.

 

Yes. While Genesis 1 doesn't make that explicit (it is debatable whether Genesis 1:1 is a summary of the six days or the first event of the first day -- the NET Bible notes provide a good summary of this issue), it is clear from verses like Colossians 1:15-17 and Hebrews 11:3 that God created ex nihilo.

Colossians 1:15-17: "[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -- all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

Hebrews 11:3: "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

 

Thanks Marcia. I appreciate the opportunity to calmly discuss these issues.

It doesn't mean it is non-literal, but it is evidence that it may be. Do you take the seals of Revelation as precisely literal and sequential? Some do, but many don't. Because of the way it is written, it isn't clear that they are intended to be taken that way. The same goes for the days of Genesis 1, because they are written and arranged in a similar fashion.

On its own it doesn't. It just shows that the account uses poetic imagery.

The variation is not just in what details are mentioned, but in how the details are described. They do not easily fit together into a single chronology of events. Again, this is evidence that they weren't intended to be merged into a single historical timeline.

The problem with this approach is that it makes God's speech ineffectual, as if God were just talking to himself before getting down to business and actually creating. Other passages clearly say that God's word is effectual in creation (see for instance Psalm 33:9).

In my opinion, the way to reconcile the two is to realize that God's creative act is beyond human understanding. Both Genesis 1 and 2 give pictures of it that are understandable from a human perspective. Genesis 1 stresses God's transcendence and power, while Genesis 2 stresses God's immanence and care. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for a single, literal story to combine those paradoxical characteristics in a way that was easily understood, but the two accounts, presented back to back, help us to see more than any one strictly historical account could show on its own. This is similar to how Jesus used many parables to describe the kingdom of heaven: none is complete or can be pushed too far on its own, but by putting them together we get a fuller picture.

So, it is true that God spoke animals and humans into being, and it is also true that he formed them from the ground. And, what science tells us about this process is also true. God's speech does not contradict with the intermediate methods once we realize that God's speech can command those methods.

Anyway, I'm off to Canada Day celebrations now. Have a great long weekend, Marcia!

 

I accept the teachings of the Bible in Genesis One and Two as being not a literal historical narrative but to be interpreted as a spiritual lesson because a) the literal teachings of chapters one and two are in conflict with each other and b) the literal teachings are in conflict with our present knowledge about the age of the earth and the common descent of all life.

Scientifically, the matter is settled. The only dissent is from people with a literal religous heritage in opposition to the current knowledge, to which they cling in spite of the evidence.

The dissent is anti-bible, because it makes the person choose between scientific truth and Bible truth. Thus does Satan seek to keep people from ever taking the Bible seriously. Ultimately, the opposition to the knowledge of the age of the earth and the common descent of all life is against truth, and since God is truth, it is against God. Many are decieved, however, and believe they are furthering God's work by doing this.

As for the narrative of the fall, the spiritual insight into the nature of the fall is nothing short of miraculous. We see that the fall comes from assimilating knowledge (symbolically portrayed as the fruit of a tree).

Every man becomes a sinner by first, gaining the knowledge that what he has been doing all along is, actually, sin. For we all know that a just God would not condemn a man for doing something when he did not know it was wrong. Because our father Adam ate of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil and fell and caused all his children to be raised in a fallen world, we all grow up with sin practices, improperly parented, and then after we learn what is wrong, we find ourselves continuing to do it anyway. In this way, the winning of knowledge results in our fall; every one of us, growing up, recapitulates the fall of Adam our spiritual and physical father.

How could a wandering tribe of primitive people form such a sophisticated understanding of the nature of sin and its relationship to knowledge? They don't even show they understand that in the following chapters! Truly, this Bible is a miracle. And I say it is even designed to be interpreted as revealing God's hand in creation following our discoveries about the age of the universe and the common descent of all life. No small feat, considering the stubborness of the kind of people to whom it had to be entrusted in the beginning . . . people like us today.

 

The NIV removes the "conflict" between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 by translating 2:8 as "Now the Lord God HAD planted a gardern in the east, in Eden; . . . "

 

Re: Theistic evolution: just a few simple reasons why I ‘m not a theistic evolutionist.

#1- Theistic evolution is an oxymoron.
As OldRegular has repeated ad noisome, the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is a wholly materialistic, (non-theistic) worldview. Evolutions primary mechanism is natural selection; an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process. The fundamental driving force of evolutionary theory is chance.

“God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31 NAS) God’s plan as revealed in Scripture is distinctly directed, purposeful and personal. Very unlike that described in modern evolutionary theory. Some theistic evolutionists have sought to distance themselves from the term “theistic evolution” perhaps due to the very reason that evolution is so closely married to blind chance. Howard VanTill (a theistic evolutionist) names his proposed theory, “The Fully-Gifted Creation” which connotes a much better image. So my first difficulty with theistic evolution is perhaps just a simple nomenclature issue, but image is everything.

#2- The problem of life from non-life.
Of all of my classes in school, the one that impressed me most with wonder for God’s creation was simple cellular biology. Even the most basic of cells holds wonders that astound me. I personally don’t believe that life could evolve without direct divine intervention. Life is greater than the sum of its parts.

#3- The man, Adam: I believe that Adam must be a historical figure.
“Do we not all have one father?…” (Malachi 2:10 NAS)
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— (Romans 5:12 NAS)

Problem #4- Woman from man: another special creation event.
For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man. (1 Corinthians 11:8 NAS).
“For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.” (1 Timothy 2:13 NAS)

Problem #5- “after their kind” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25; 6:19, 20; 7:14)
No, we can’t define “kind” but biblically it appears that there are points where biological limits or restraints exist.

These are just a few off the top of my head
I understand that Theistic evolution does not preclude direct divine interventions at times, particularly when dealing with aspects involving God’s interactions with man. So these difficulties can be ironed out. I’m skeptical but open to reason

Rob

 

Yes, that's what I'm saying too.

Yes, the NIV does smooth over some of the problems, but others remain. For instance, at least certain types of plants are said to not yet have appeared or sprung up when Adam was created (Genesis 2:4-7), while on day three God made all kinds of vegetation and saw that they were good (Genesis 1:11-13).

As has been pointed out before, the "driving" force of evolution is natural selection which is not random. Mutations provide the possible routes, while natural selection determines which routes are selected. Also, evolution is no more materialistic or non-theistic as any other scientific theory, as OldRegular has been repeatedly informed. But, those are just quibbles.

Why are random forces a problem? Casting lots is by definition random, as were Urim and Thummim, and yet God used these methods to allow his people to discern his will. The merging of DNA during conception is also undirected, as far as we can tell, yet the psalmist claims that he is fearfully and wonderfully made by God (Psalm 139:13-16). The weather is also a product of impersonal forces, yet God can still use it for his own purposes, whether by bringing about famines, rains or whirlwinds. In the Bible, it seems that not only can God work through what seems random to humans, but often he specifically chooses random processes to bring about his purposes.

So, why is the randomness of evolution any more problematic than the unpredictability of which people marry or the way genetic traits are determined at conception? If God can work his own purposes in these things, even though they appear undetermined to us, why would evolution cause a problem?

As for the rest of your points, many TEs believe #2 (non-life to life) was a direct act of God, and this transition is not part of evolutionary theory which begins when a population of living things already exist. As already explained, many TEs accept #3 (that Adam was historical), and a small minority even accept #4 (that Eve was formed from Adam).

Your #5 point actually fits quite well with evolution, since evolution claims that each organism will always reproduce after its kind. Anything else, such as a fish giving birth to a whale or a cat giving birth to a dog, would falsify the theory. I think your comment here may be based on looking backward at evolutionary descent, while these claims from the Bible look forward. The tree analogy may be helpful. A branch may further divide into more branches and twigs, but all of these are still part of the same branch. To oversimplify, it is about division of a kind into sub-kinds, rather than about one kind becoming another kind.

 

Mercury's posts are really quite excellent. Ichthus succumbed to the typical, "any interpretation other than mine is evil." In fact, he specifically calls it "evil." So I suppose that Ichthus is bound to confess that Jesus is made of wood because He said He's the door, the antichrist is the loch ness monster because he's a "beast rising out of the sea," the moon is going to be transformed into hemoglobin, etc., etc., etc.
As Mercury has pointed out, many held a non-literal view of Gen. 1 through the ages, long before Darwinism came on the scene. Today's insistence that a hyper-literal reading of the chapter is the only acceptable one is a reactionary stance to Darwinism. I am in full agreement that Darwinism is a heresy. At its essence, Darwinism is a materialistic view that eliminates divine envolvement. But I'm not going to retreat into a corner because of some heretics.
Because one rejects Darwinism doesn't mean that one rejects micro-evolution. In fact, I doubt that anyone on these boards would deny that creatures adapt. I think Timothy Johnson's book Darwin on Trial is excellent.

 

Darwin and all neo-Darwinists believe that evolution is random, meaning accidental, without design.

Evolution can never be reconciled with the Bible's teaching that God created the universe.

One believes in only the natural, the other believes in the universe as it actually exists, natural and supernatural.

One believes in randomness, the other believes in design.

One believes in meaninglessness, the other purpose.

One believes in man's thoughts, the other revelation, God's thoughts.

Theistic evolution results in a downward slide away from the Bible and its authority.